Talk:Fascism

Talk:Fascism/suggested readings Talk:Fascism/ archive1 Talk:Fascism/ archive2 Talk:Fascism/ archive3 Talk:Fascism/ archive4

This article is a selected entry at MediaWiki:March 23 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

I have four comments concerning all the above discussion. 1) some people seem to post unserious comments. This ought to stop as it is distracting from what ought to be a serious discussion. I can't make anyone stop, but I think people who respond to unserious comments with more unserious comments are only making matters worse.

2) I think 172's idea of a series of articles is a good one; I don't know whether we are ready to start several linked articles, but the point is to organize some of the different elements.

3) concerning TDC's question, what is wrong with this:

It can be argued that the development of fascist and National Socialist ideology has its origins in the socialist and Marxist tradition. Mussolini was a prominent socialist intellectual and publicist for most of his early political and professional career. His conversion to fascism was more an alteration of his political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them. Mussolini saw solidarity with a nation rather than a class as the key to the destruction of "liberal capitalism". This case is made in The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek .

Well, there are several things wrong with this. First, "It can be" is crappy style and has no place in an encyclopedia. Usually it is just a sloppy rhetorical device for saying "This is my opinion but I don't want to take responsibility for it." If a major scholar or politican has said this, fine -- let's quote that person and contextualize the quote. But never say "it can be argued." It can be argued that the moon is made of swiss cheese, but just because one can argue this doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Second, if anyone has argued that fascism has its origin in "marxist tradition" I would ask, What is this "tradition?" Marx himself cites as important sources for his own thinking Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Hegel. Wny not just say that Fascism has its origins in "Western thought?" Obviously that is too broad, and "Marxist" has the virtue of being more specific, but if you define Marxist very precisely then the claim is simply false. Of course many early fascists had flirted with socialism -- that is just the nature of early twentieth century European politics. That Moussilini was once a socialist does not mean that Fascist thought has its origins in socialist thought any more than saying that "Republican" thought has its origins in "Democrat" thought because Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. Ideas relate to one another in very complex ways and "origins" is just misleading. It is true that Fascism privileges solidarity with the nation over solidarity with class (and there is no problem quoting Hayek). But this fact, far from supporting the previous three claims, refutes them. The choice to privilege nation over class is a profound difference between fascism and marxism.

4) the debate comparing the USSR with Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy is silly because it lacks a notion of context and history. OBVIOUSLY there are similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany, as there are similarities between both countries and the United States. Just as obviously, there are differences too. Just listing similarities and differences is meaningless unless one understands (and explains) the relationship between these similarities and differences. I propose two important terms and perhaps ought to be stressed more in this discussion: first, Hegel. One could say that the bitter conflict between communism and fascism was a conflict between left-wing Hegelianism and right-wing Hegelianism. Any ideological similarities between Marxism and Fascism owe to the domineering influence of Hegel, who really set the agenda for philosophy for a hundred and fifty years. Second, corporatism. Moussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Peron, and many others, all had to grapple with massive changes in the world economy following the Great Depression. Corporatism was a political response to these problems. But "Corporatism" took and continues to take many forms. However similar Stalin's, Roosevelt's, and Hitler's forms of coproratism were, the differences were just as important -- and these differences owe to ideology, domestic political forces, and different local histories. "corporatism" is an ideal type, a heuristic device we use to identify certain formal similarities. These formal similarities may tell us somthing about that time in history. But they certainly don't mean that fascism and communism are the same thing! Slrubenstein

You and John are my heroes for having the patience to give select users this much-needed private tutoring through WP. It often takes more time to respond to nonsense on WP than it does to write halfway decent articles. This gets tiresome after a while. 172 08:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My contributions on the idea that fascism is an extension of Marxism is not something I have pulled out of thin air. Many serious and well respected academics have made this point, Hayek was not the only one to do so.

The quote that you provided by Hayek -- as I made clear in my response to your comment above does not support your contention. You either need to provide another quote from Hayaek, or you are misconstruing Hayek's analysis.

David Ramsay Steele, Edward Feser, Joshua Muravchik, and Ayn Rand have all made the case for this as well.

Ayn Rand and Steele are not really scholars (I think Steele has a degree but I don't think he is in an academic department or has published in peer-reviewed journals; I know of one book which is basically a vanity publication), but you could include their views as non-scholarly views. Muravchik is a scholar, and again, his view should be represented. BUT the main point is not to present their views as objective truth but as one POV among many, and contextualize that POV (i.e., their reading of Fascism is motivated by their ideological opposition to the USSR) Slrubenstein

I am not simply saying that the sole reason for fascism being an outgrowth of Marxism is because Mussolini and Hitler began their careers as socialists.

The problem is not your reasons, but your use of the word "outgrowth" which, as I explained to you in my previous response to your comment, above, is misleading. Slrubenstein

There is quite a bit more to it than that, and I will make this case in my addition to this article. I am not saying that fascism and communism are the same thing, what I am saying is that fascims, communism, socialism are were given birth to Marx. What is sounds like to me is since you [Slrubenstein, 172] do not believe, (or do not want to admit it) that Marxist thought was the bedrock for fascist theory, any mention of this in the article has no place.

No, you are not understanding what I have written in response to your commentsSlrubenstein

This is a point that is going to be made at some length in the article. Like it or lump it.TDC 16:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, have we come to the agreement that you will not object to and remove a well reaonsed and sourced addition on the Marxist roots of Fascism? TDC 18:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism was anti-Marxist But was also leftist and collectivist.

Fascism was a form of socialism as Mussolini says. "Fascsism preserves private property as implements of Bureaucracy".

Fascism has the element of Nationalism. This is what defines it away from Marxism. (A rightist can be Nationalistic; A socialist can be nationalistic; A Marxist is never nationalistic; yet Russia started out that way but moved to Nationalistism{WWII strengthened it}-it would soon move to un-nationalistic in evolution."WHEELER 16:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER you are correct that Fascism was anti-marxist but collectivist. But to call it "leftist" is either anachronistic or inaccurate. My sense is that fascism simply does not fit into contemporary categories of "left" and "right." As for your final part, you seem to disregard my comment to you at the top, on how to interpret history. Slrubenstein

See my comments above on structure of article.

Thesis; Capitalism (Under attack).

Antithesis; Communism (Proposed system or philosopy to replace Capitalism)

Synthesis; Fascism. (Are socialists that reject parts of Marxism.)

Thesis; Communism is international. Karl Marx's "All the workers of the world Unite".

Antithesis;Fascism is national.

Communism is discredited. Never worked in Athens where Aristotle comments on it. The Mayflower experiment failed. Russian failed. America's Fascism is successful so the new Synthesis; International Fascism. Socialism is in constant flux of evolution. It is in the Hegelian Dialectic of trial and error.WHEELER 16:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, what historians or political scientists have made this argument? Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for original research or personal essays. I do not know of any contemporary philosopher who uses terms like "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" this way and have never read this in any book or article on Fascism. What is your scholarly source (in other words, you cannot support this claim with quotes from Mussolini or Marx) for this particular way of relating communism and fascism? Personally, what you write above makes no sense to me, is illogical and disregards important evidence. But like I said this is not the place for personal essays and just as your opinion doesn't matter, neither does mine. But what historian or political scientist has made this argument? Slrubenstein

Fascism's roots in Marxism

This paragraph is biased and one-sided and needs to be balanced with the contrary view by writers such as Trotsky (for one) of why fascism is not descended from Marxism/fascism's links with capitalism or removed entirely.

Fine by me, I will have something with a day or two. TDC 18:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For a Marxist view on fascism see Fascism: What it is and how to fight it by Leon Trotsky Given the Marxism is internationalist and fascism is nationalist it's bizarre to argue that fascism "comes out of the Marxist tradition"

I have uploaded an image onto the website it is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_scocialist_diagram.jpg

Can someone put links to this on the Nazism and Fascism page. And work a good edits on this. Thanks. Diagrams are useful.WHEELER 18:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, this paragraph is just absurd: "His conversion to fascism was more an alteration of his political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them. Mussolini saw solidarity with a nation rather than a class as the key to the destruction of liberal capitalism. This case is made in The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. "

Class conflict is at the centre of Marxism! Replacing nation with class is not just an "alteration" of political belief "rather than an outright rejection", it's the complete rejection of the core of Marxist thought (class struggle, power to the working class) in favour of an entirely different ideology (nationalism). Mussolini was opposed to liberalism but not to capitalism and capitalism functioned quite well under Mussolini. Mussolini's state never expropriated or nationalised any industries or interfered with profits. "Corporatism" is not socialism, it's a system of class collaboration (getting workers and capitalists to work together for the interests of society) rather than class conflict and again completely antithetical to Marxism.

Hey, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz were all Marxists in their youth too you know. Yet one would never say that their conversion to conservatism "was more an alteration of (their) political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them." Often times the most adamant opponents of an ideology are ex-believers and indeed, if you look at the Cold War in the US many of the most adamant anti-Communists and most stringent defenders of conservatism and capitalism were ex-Communists.

All early Fascist thinkers were Marxists, there is no way around that. While it is true that Kirkpatrick, Pearle, Wolfowitz, and Muravchik were all Marxists of one variety or another when young, they completly rejected it. All early Fascist thinkers made it very clear that they were simply taking up where they saw Fascism as either not working or unfinished. So take your neatly constructed strawman and light it on fire please.

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.

Adolph Hitler

You are kidding, aren't you? This quote in no way suggests that Hitler was ever a Marxist. What id does prove is that he claims to have learned from "marxism" and appealed to Marxism to legitimate his ideas. One might infer from this that he was responding to critics who were Marxists, or trying to recruit Marxists. neither means he ever was a Marxist. Can't you read? This quote doesn't prove that Naziism is what Marxism might have been etc., it only proves that Hitler claimed this to be the case. But why did he claim this? To whom? At least ask the basic historical questions. Do you know anything about the methods of historians? Slrubenstein

Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman

Again, this does not in any way suggest that Naziism has its roots in Marxism. What it does prove is that Naziis appealed to critiques of private property, including socialist critiques. But one need not be a Marxist or even a socialist to reject private property. Moreover, one can agree with an element of socialism without being a socialist. Again, you provide no context -- to whom was Huber speaking (surely, he was not answering your direct question, "Were you a Marxist?" So why do you use it to answer that question?) Slrubenstein

While it is alos true that Fascism did not abolish private property, it most certainly stripped privtate property holders of all independent control of it. This is extremely anti-capitalist, and more akin to socialism belief that productive entities should serve the "people".

Fascism kept far more traits of Marxism than it rejected.

Marxism is certainly not just a list of traits one can quantify. I don't think Fascism is either. This is not how historians or political theorists study political ideologies or systems. Slrubenstein

Now, I have a few pages to write about this subject for inclusion into the articleTDC 19:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Our movement is "guided by the ideals of democracy, nationalism and social justice ... of Jeffersonian democracy". -- Fidel Castro (1956)

""I am not a communist and neither is the revolutionary movement." -- Fidel Castro (1959)

People say lots of things and a lot of what people say are lies. You can only judge them by their actions. At the core of Marxism is power for the working class over the capitalist class and the expropriation of capital. Fascism didn't embody any of that, it didn't give the workers power over capital, didn't exprorpriate the commanding heights of the economy (indeed, Fascist Italy didn't nationalise anything) didn't redistribute income from the rich to the poor, didn't introduce a welfare state. Rather it worked with capital and enhanced capital's power by smashing unions, the workers movements, socialist parties etc. Yes, they may have uttered empty phrases about workers etc but they didn't deliver anything nor did they try to. Heck, despite claims to the contrary it seems that the trains didn't even run on time under Mussolini!Andylehrer 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

":Fascism kept far more traits of Marxism than it rejected." Nonsense. Fascism jettisoned the concepts that are at the core of Marxism, class struggle, workers ownership of the means of production and the eradiation of capitalism. When you get rid of that, which fascismd did, what of Marxism do you have left? Andylehrer 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's popular among the US right to confuse statism and socialism and act as if all and any state intervention is socialist and the more centralised a state is and the more control a state has the more socialist it is. This is a false assumption. Socialism is about the working class and giving the working class control (or, in bureacratised versions of socialism giving the working class material benefits). What those who conflate socialism and statism ignore is the nature of the state. If the state serves the interests of the capitalist class, enhances its profits, suppresses the workers then it's a captialist state, if it serves the interests of the workers than it's a workers state. Just because the Stalinist model was statist doesn't mean that all forms of statism are socialism or all forms of socialism are statist. Look at the police states of Taiwan under Chaing Kai Shek, South Korea under Park Chung Hee, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under the Junta, various central American dictatorship set up to protect the state from socialism and suppress the working class yet these highly regimented police states were all capitalist. Indeed, Chile was seen as a model by Maggie Thatcher. Conversely, you can have socialist societies that have highly decentralised and nebulous states. The question is not how much control does the state have, it's what is the nature of the state and in whose class interest does the state serve. If it's the workers then its a socialist state, if its capitalists it's a capitalist state. Fascism clearly served the interests of capitlalism and the capitalist class and suppressed the working class so clearly fascism was not "socialist" in execution despite occasional lip service to the workers. Andylehrer 21:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Listen carefully, because this is the last time I am going to state this in black and white. I am not saying that Marxism=Fascism in every way shape and form. I am syaing, along with Hayek, James Gregor (the faces of Janus), Steele, Feser, Muravchik, and Rand is that Fascism was only born from Marxism, but is the inevitable conclusion to Marxism. I don't care who here agrees or disagrees with this conclusion, but it is one that will be made in this entry. I know 172, err .... I mean some people here would love to pull a Stalin and airbrush away anything that they deem counter-revolutionary or uncomfortable, but that is too bad.

I have a point. It has been well researched by academics and lay people alike and it will be a part of this discussion. TDC 21:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Assertion is not evidence. It's not that Marxism does not equal fascism "in every way shape and form" it's that Marxism and fascism are completely different and opposing ideologies.

That is your view, and you are entitled to it, but many others have looked into the question at some length and have come to different and well researched conclusions. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As for fascism only being born from Marxism, fascism is a REACTION to Marxism so yes, that's correct but it's a reaction in that it is a response by capitalists in an attempt to suppress and destroy a rising Marxist movement.

A response by capitalists? That must be why all early fascists were hard core Marxists.... Yeah capitalists, makes sense to me. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism is, by its own admission, counter-revolutionary and is promoted by capitalists in times of crisis as a way of setting up a bulwark against Marxism. Hitler raged against "Judeo-Bolshevism" as the enemy and promised to stop Germany from going Bolshevik. Mussolini left out the Judeo part but promised the same thing. That's why the Italian monarchy and the Italian capitalist class supported the fascists, because they were afraid of the Marxists.

Once again, That must be why all early fascists were hard core Marxists. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look TDC, I can wrangle up a lot of quotes and articles (including the one you cite) that state that George W. Bush is a fascist or Ronald Reagan was a fascist or Thatcher is fascist but that doesn't mean any of them are.

If that would make you feel better, then do it. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People like to smear their opponents by associating them with something unpleasant. That's what most of your sources try to do when they call socialism or the USSR "fascist" just like it's what parts of the left does when they call Bush, Reagan or LBJ fascist but that doesn't mean their use of the term is accurate or their comparisons are convincing. Ironically, the article you cite is one example of left liberals calling right wing conservatives fascist (rather irresponsibly)Andylehrer 21:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, anyone can see what is going on here. Some people are turning this article into their own personal sandbox, and clearly don’t want others to come in and play with them. After looking at the article history for a while I saw that for quite a while there was a section on Fascism’s roots in Marxist thought. Then someone came in and won an editing war to remove it by wearing the other person out. I will not let that happen.

No one person can monopolize this forum, no matter how dedicated and stubborn they are. I am not saying that I am going to replace the entire article with a Fascism=Communism=anything TDC dont like. I am going to add a section and it will stay there. If someone wants to make a couter point to it, so be it. But if someone wants to eliminate it because they personally don’t believe it, then TDC say TFB.

I am done on this discussion page for now, In a day or two I will have my addition up.

End of story. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TDC you seem unaware that the fascists *like* Ayn Rand so much that at the same time fascist Italy was banning Charlie Chaplin films they made a screen version of Rand's book "We the Living":) Perhaps we should mention *that* in the article? Andylehrer 21:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, if thats your thing then do it........TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"We the Living (1942) During World War II, an unauthorized version of Ayn Rand’s novel was filmed in fascist Italy. It turned out to be a brilliant job, however, and starred screen legends Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi. The film was later discovered by Ayn Rand’s attorneys, and reissued to great critical acclaim."

Perhaps you can explain, TDC, why the works of Marx were banned in fascist Italy but at the same time they liked Ayn Rand so much they made a film out of one of her books. Does this mean there was an overlap between fascist ideology and the ideas of Ayn Rand? Andylehrer 21:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in 1943 Hollywood shot Mission to Moscow, a unabsgedly pro soviet film, does that mean that hollywood was full of commies ... oh wait it was, never mind.TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

yes, there were communists in Hollywood. Glad you agree though that fascist Italy saw a lot of value in the works of Ayn Rand. So why do you think they banned Marx while filming Ayn Rand?Andylehrer 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The diagram is pretty useless. You can conclude from it that Nazism is descended from democracy! (look where the arrow for democracy and French revolution points to) :)130.15.162.59 19:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Communism

I just read Lawrence Britt's article on fascism [1], one of the external links mentioned at the end of the (protected) article. Seems that most of his bullet points apply equally well to Nazi Germany as to the Soviet Union. This bolsters my personal opinion that Fascism and Communism are totalitarian twins. "Communism in 20th century Europe was as guilty of crimes against humanity as fascism." [2]

Dictatorships have a dismal track record of improving the lot of the common people. It seems that economic prosperity goes hand in hand with political freedom.

Proponents of Communism claim that it liberates the masses from the oppression of dictatorship (such as Hitler inflicted), capitalism (cf. excesses of the early industrial revolution) and religion (opiate of the masses, evils of the Crusades, "mind control").

Ironically, proponents of fascism also claim to liberate the people (at any rate, the "master race") from tyranny and poverty. But it sounds to me like two evil giants fighting over which is to be the biggest tyrant of them all. And both sides persecuted religion terribly.

--Uncle Ed 19:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm moving down toward the bottom of the page the "various thoughts on the article in general" (starting w/ John Kenney's 06:00, 27 Mar 2004 posting). Hopefully, this will rekindle the serious discussion. 172 08:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Various thoughts on the article in general

Unrelated to the current argument, but doesn't the article give rather too much credit to Franco and Salazar as "fascists"? It seems to suggest that there is a general consensus that these regimes are fascist. This is extremely dubious with respect to Salazar, and, I think, questionable with respect to Franco. Furthermore, to treat Franco's relationship to the Falange as equivalent to Mussolini's and Hitler's with their parties is very questionable. I'd also note that this page focuses far too much on fascist regimes (of which there have been few genuine cases - only Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy can, I think, be called fascist without qualification, plus maybe some of the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe - although even here we should be careful about, say, calling Vichy fascist, given the very strong conservative traditionalist trends within the Vichy government, represented not least by PÃ©tain himself) as opposed to fascist movements, of which there were a large number (British Union of Fascists, the Falange, Doriot and DÃ©at's organizations in France in the 30s and under Vichy, Arrow Cross in Hungary, Iron Guard in Romania, and so forth...).

More broadly regarding this argument, I'd argue (as usual, perhaps) for a more historical perspective on fascism, discussing its origins with Mussolini, and then the spread of various fascist and quasi-fascist movements to other parts of Europe, and so forth. Avoid the poli-sci/theoretical stuff as much as possible, especially given the extent to which fascism is, in fact, rather difficult to fit into any coherent theoretical framework. And BTW, surely it only escalates the conflict to make what you know will be highly controversial edits and then put "NPOV" as the subject summary. john 06:00, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very good points by John. I'd go even further, though. This article needs a fundamental overhaul. IMHO, we need to work on structure first, then content. This is the best means of realizing our possibly contradictory goals. First, let me explain what I mean by this.

Here are the conflicting stylistic goals. On one hand, readers of encyclopedic entries are seeking parsimony and clarity. On the other hand, Slrubenstein and John Kenney have thoroughly demonstrated the problem of sweeping generalizations, e.g. "Fascism is ..." To reiterate Slrubenstein's point, encyclopedias do need sentences like this. While we want the writing to be clear and relatable to the vast majority of potential readers, we cannot do so at the expense of not incorporating enough factors or contextualization.

The other conflicts are content-related. Fascism as a global historical phenomenon warrants attention. The Sonderweg thesis, e.g., relates Nazism to processes rooted in socio-economic structures; other scholars (e.g., Barrington Moore) have gone further, examining the relationship of German, Japanese, and Italian "fascism" in the interwar era to "modernization." Yet we ought to consider the astute words of caution regarding "the poli-sci/theoretical stuff" (see above) raised by John Kenney. Since this is an encyclopedic entry, we need to stay focused on regimes considered fascist by a general consensus and stay on topic.

IMHO, reorganization will make things far easier for us when we're doing the rewrites. While I'm not worried about the serious users going off topic, we cannot expect to be the sole authors. Good, well-defined organization will tell writers/editors where to include what. Writers would know where to include, e.g., "the poli-sci/theoretical stuff," and where to avoid it.

My idea is a New Imperialism-style series. A parent article (i.e. Fascism) would consist of executive summaries of its component daughter articles and a series box. The first daughter article could be Fascism as a political movement (both prewar and postwar). This article could start with Mussolini's Fascist (capital "F") movement, and then address the spread of fascist-like and Nazi movements to other parts of Europe. The second article could be Fascism as a system of government, focusing on Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe. It could trace these following subtopics (listed in no particular order): social bases of support for fascist regimes, totalitarianism and control, regime ideology, mass mobilization, the seizures of power, the relationships with traditional elites, party and state structures, and the political economy. Fascism as an international phenomenon could be a third and final article in the series. In this article we could deal with Japan, Franco, Salazar, Vichy France, Arrow Cross in Hungary, possibly fascist-like regimes in Latin America, etc., while never loosing focus on the ambiguities and the lack of consensus.

Notice that Fascism as an ideology is conspicuously absent. This was very intentional on my part. For lack of a better way of describing it, such an article would leave a breeding ground for trolling. Instead, the three articles in my proposal above would address ideology from time to time, but in a proper context, with no room for, say, loopy John Birch Society-style rants (Hum, I wonder why that crossed my mind?). A good structure requires writers to stay on focus, stay concrete, and stay properly contextualized. IMO, the lack of structure in the existing article (not the "Marxist POV") has engendered the antics of the three 'fascism is social democracy' stooges more than any other single factor. With an organization that allows for such open-endedness, we should expect abuse. It's possible to dig up handful of out-of-context quotes, and write a bunch of reductionisms (e.g., "Socialists think" and "Germans think") and create a work of fiction that reaches comedic levels.

My ideas for a major overhaul are very tentative. I'd like to hear others. For now, the most important point that I'm stressing is imposing safeguards against sweeping generalizations, and the misconception, e.g., that Fascism and Nazism were complete or consistent theories. 172 14:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name the 3 stooges? :-) Kim Bruning 17:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~~Wheeler, TDC, Sam Spade~~ Opps - I should avoid sweeping generalizations! That combination changes. Moe, Larry, Curly from '34- '37. Then there's Moe, Larry, and Shemp. Less remembered are Moe, Larry, and Joe; and Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe are in '50s episodes. Even that answer depends on the context! Here are some pics: http://www.lunkhead.net/stoogepics/mls/stoogepics2.html 172 17:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172's proposal sounds pretty good to me. I agree that organization is definitely part of the problem with the article at present. And I agree that Fascism as an ideology would be serious problematic, just because it's very hard to actually come up with any kind of consistent ideology of fascism. john 18:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it sounds good also. The current first section (definition) is a mess and could probably be chopped up into 172's proposed sections. The paragraph about the sloppy usage of the word "fascist" should either be trimmed or eliminated. Words are often used in a sloppy manner, and I don't think it is necessary for us to point that out. I added a non-partisan statement about prejorative use because there is a ton of emphasis on the use of "fascist" to characterize right-wing groups, but no-one had mentioned the common usage of "femi-nazi"! Anyway, I don't think that we should get into all the examples of how the term is used in divisive rhetoric. AdamRetchless 18:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the main article of the
Fascism series.

Fascism as a political movement

Fascism as a system of government

Fascism as an international phenomenon

Adam, Kim, and John,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll put up a template of a series box here. Don't worry - I'm not getting way ahead of myself. We can just play around with it here for now. 172 20:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's an example of a potential template for the main page. We can play around with this, choosing and organizing content for the article series. 172 20:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism as a political movement

For details see the main article Fascism as a political movement.

Mussolini's fascist movement, spread of fascist-like and Nazi movements to other parts of Europe

Fascism as a system of government

For details see the main article Fascism as a system of government.

Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe
- Social bases of support for fascist regimes, totalitarianism and control, regime ideology, mass mobilization, the seizures of power, the relationships with traditional elites, party and state structures, and the political economy

Fascism as an international phenomenon

For details see the main article Fascism as an international phenomenon.

Fascist-like, quasi-fascist regimes, movements in the interwar era (e.g., Japan, Franco, Salazar, Vichy France, Arrow Cross in Hungary, possibly fascist-like regimes in Latin America)

I copied and pasted below a portion of User:Slrubenstein's comments (the full text can be found above in this talk page) not pertaining to the talk that I'd moved down. 172 08:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Here they are:

1) some people seem to post unserious comments. This ought to stop as it is distracting from what ought to be a serious discussion. I can't make anyone stop, but I think people who respond to unserious comments with more unserious comments are only making matters worse.

2) I think 172's idea of a series of articles is a good one; I don't know whether we are ready to start several linked articles, but the point is to organize some of the different elements.

I agree. Just to for the sake of clarity, I'll say again that we're not ready to start work on linked articles. You're right about the need for feedback on organizing the different elements of a potential series. 172 08:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks 172 -- I hope other people (e.g.WHEELER and TDC will read and respond to my comments above. I want to stress the importance of some discussion of Hegel as a way of approaching the ideological similarities and differences between Fascism and Marxism; and some discussion of corporatism as a way of putting Fascism in a broader perspective of comparative political systems. Slrubenstein

Whell, 172, what can I say? Judging from their recent comments, either WHEELER and TDC won't read my comments, or they don't understand them. I wondewr if they even understand what "history" is! Slrubenstein

Page protection

Can anybody tell me why the fascism article is protected? I want to start editing, but Angela won't let me -- not until the page is "unprotected". --Uncle Ed 20:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Erm.. as I posted on Wikipedia:Protected page:

Fascism - as per request; edit war between John Kenney and TDC over whether or not the Soviet Union was fascist. -- Hadal 23:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If John and TDC (and everyone else concerned) have reached an agreement, I'll unprotect it. -- Hadal 20:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's up to TDC, really. I will continue to revert any attempts to list the Soviet Union as a fascist state. john 21:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but what if it's in the form of John Smith, head of the XYZ Think Tank, called the Soviets "a murderous gang of fascists"?

Or perhaps more to the point, will you allow the term totalitarian to be applied to the Soviet Union, as in Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other American conservatives consider Nazi Germany and Russia under Stalin to be examples of "totalitarianism"? --Uncle Ed 21:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to have the Soviet Union, and communist China, listed as examples of totalitarianism in the totalitarianism article. They have certainly been described as such. This article is about fascism. To say that the Soviet Union was not fascist is not to say that the Soviet union was good. Just to say that "fascist" is a word with specific meanings, and that calling the Soviet Union "fascist" is simply to make the term meaningless. Especially since fascism has traditionally been a term used by the left - the right has tended, as you point out, to focus more on the idea of totalitarianism. Some elements of the left have frequently misused "fascism" to refer to any right wing, or even center-right regime. If we have the Soviet Union listed, because some people have occasionally called it fascist, we may as well have George W. Bush's United States - certainly that accusation has been made as well. john 21:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any attempts to remove the USSR and a new addition, China, well result in my reinsertion of them. I have made a case, and a good one at that, that according to bothe the definition set forth in the article itself as well as this reference. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm TDC 21:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You have made a case but it's not convincing and based entirely on "appeal to authority" ie one guy who neglects to examine the political economy of fascism. Frankly, I doubt this guy would say the USSR was fascist if you asked him and would be surprised you're usinghim to back you up. Frankly, his article is a polemic arguing that the US is fascist which is also a contestable proposition. It's not meant to argue anything about the ex-Soviet Union. And the ex USSR fails on point nine I think it was "protection of corporations" and also on the point about religion. Implicit in his view is that fascist states are capitalist. The ex USSR was not capitalist (China's open to debate) Andylehrer 21:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What Andy says. The source you cit doesn't actually support the case you're making, and neither does the current definition in the article, which notes various ideas of fascism that are not to be found in Soviet communism. For instance, it notes that fascism is anti-communist. john 21:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, the problem is there are three issues here and the article can address eachone, but must keep them separate. 1) analyzing the classic Fascist regimes (Italy, Germany, Spain) in a critical, scholarly way. 2) a discussion of the use of "fascism" as an ideal type for an ideology, social movement, or political system, and the way political scientists who study comparative political systems compare fascism to similar regimes 3) popular, politically motivate uses of "fascism" and "fascist," which includes non-scholarly claims about Italy and Germany, and about other countries/regimes. Slrubenstein

TDC, here's an article arguing the US is fascist A Brief (But Creepy) History of America's Creeping Fascism by your argument we should now put an assertion in the article that the US is fascistAndylehrer 21:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From the Ayn Rand Institute: "Earlier this year, a professor at McGill University in Quebec, opposing a proposed chair in philosophy devoted to Ayn Rand's ideas, denounced Rand as a "fascist" and compared her to Hitler."

Well geez Louise, a professor ie an academic compares Ayn Rand's to Hitler and calls her fascist. Well if an academic says it it must be so. Guess that according to TDC's standards of scholarship we have no choice should but to add somthing to the fascism article asserting that Ayn Rand is a fascist.Andylehrer 22:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Capitalistic Fascism: One wonders if the bizarre capitalism Rand espouses is a Vision or merely a poke-in-the-eye-with-a-sharp-stick to the Bolsheviks who caused her to be booted out of the Soviet Union. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, Randian capitalism, with its Leader Principle of the natural leadership of the Competent Capitalists, and her "A is A" one-truth belief system, show a fascistic bend echoed in her propagandistic portrayal of the hobbling of the Brave Capitalists by the whining toadies of mediocrity and the collective good. The one thing Rand truly hated besides altruism was collectivism. She is clearly uncomfortable with the tenets and "weakness" of democracy. Fascism may be a strong label, but Rand's economics are forthrightly anti-democratic and exclusionary, with much regard for the Man At the Top and little for the masses beneath. Her "greed is good" philosophy is taken to ridiculous lengths in its simple minded equation of money making with competence to lead."

You know, it's remarkably easy to find academics who claim Rand is a fascist. I guess we have to put it in the article, eh TDC?Andylehrer 22:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's an article by conservative Whittiker Chambers which asserts that Rand is a fascist who would send people to the gas chambers. So far I've found more "evidence" that Ayn Rand is a fascist then TDC has found that the USSR is fascist. Guess we have to include a profile of Ayn Rand as a fascist figure nowAndylehrer 22:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You mean CPUSA Whittiker Chambers, oh thats rich! But hey, if that gets you hard in the morning, then go for it.TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I mean Wittiker Chambers when he was a conservative anti-Communist. In any case he's only one source. But TDC, I am using *your* standards of evidence and frankly the arguments re Rand's fascism are far more convincing than your arguments re the USSR. You are aware that Rand was a cooperative witness in front of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, ie she willfully and enthusiastically cooperated and encouraged an attempt by the state to suppress free speech (and McCarthyism was the closest thing the US ever developed to fascism). Andylehrer 22:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article was originally published in the bible of American conservatism, the National Review. Andylehrer 22:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, have we come to the agreement that you will not object to and remove a well reasoned and sourced addition on the Fascism of Ayn Rand? I have a point. It has been well researched by academics and lay people alike and it will be a part of this discussion. I have made a case, and a good one at that, that according to bothe the definition set forth in the article itself as well as the references above that Ayn Rand is a fascist.Andylehrer 22:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AH, I am about to say something I almost never say here, and loathe to say: it is pointless to communicate with TDC because s/he willfully ignores or misconstrues every attempt to communicate, and has no understanding of historical scholarship. OF COURSE Chambers was a staunch conservative; he vigorously renounced his CPUSA affiliation when he denounced Alger Hiss. In any event, TDC simply misses your rhetorical point. Look, none of this discussion is in any way serving the purpose of the article. Above I suggested dividing the article into three major divisions; I'd like to know what you, John, and 172 think about that. We should focus on improving the article, not feeding trolls. Slrubenstein

I have a quibble with your proposed division of the article, in that it leaves no room for discussion of fascism as a concrete political movement, which I think is, generally, more productive than looking at Fascism as a government in power, since there are many examples of the former, and very few of the latter (Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany being the only undisputed ones, I'd say, plus some puppet regimes - as I noted before, I think it's too simple to say that Franco was a fascist, although his rule certainly had elements of fascism in it.) As to arguing with TDC, until we can come to some way to make him not keep inserting the Soviet Union in the list of fascist states, the article stays protected, so that has to be resolved one way or another. john 23:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Christianity

I think there should be a mention in the article about the relationship between Catholicism and fascism.

Here are two sources The cat sat on the mat and Catholicism and Fascism: A brief retrospective

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." --all from a speech by Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922

"The Ustashi movement is based on the Catholic Religion. For the minorities, Serbs, Jews and Gypsies, we have three million bullets. A part of these minorities has already been eliminated and many are waiting to be killed. Some will be sent to Serbia and the rest will be forced to change their religion to Catholicism. Our new Croatia will therefore be free of all heretics, becoming purely Catholic for the future years."

--Mike Budak, Croatian Minister of Religion, July 22, 1941,

Branco Bokun quoted a Roman Catholic priest as having made the following remarks on June 13, 1941:

"Brethren, up to now we have worked for the Holy Roman Apostolic Church with the cross and the missal. Now the moment has come to work with a knife in one hand and a gun in the other. The more Serbs and Jews you succeed in eliminating, the more you will be raised in esteem in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church."